I'm sick of the invasion of Protestant Fundamentalists into Orthodoxy. They either need to completely abandon their former idiocy, or go back to it. They can't be truly Orthodox and still hold on to those ideas, even if they transfer them to another source (like the Fathers or Saints).

The EO faith would not proclaim mistakes in the bible, but is not sola scriptura.

There are inconsistencies, contradictions, and some more minor errors. There are also historical errors in the Old Testament.

At the same time, the Bible is 100% true, but truth is different from "actual factual". Did David and the other Patriarchs and Prophets exist? Yes, but it doesn't matter if the Bible is wrong in recording exactly when they existed.

Bp. Michael Dahulich, Synoptic Gospels course at St. Tikhon's Seminary: "for the Fathers, there are no contradictions in Scripture."

... he's a Protestant Fundamentalist of the cradle-Orthodox variety!

You really need to learn about textual criticism, the Documentary Hypothesis and general Biblical study.

Should I also link you to videos/podcasts by Bishop Kallistos Ware & Dr. Jeannie Constantinou?

are they your gurus?

No they are actually learned about these things. Just because one is advanced in their spiritual life doesn't make them scientifically or historically knowledgeable.

I'm sure there are some really holy monks out there who are far closer to God than I am, but there may also be one or two that believe that Jews run the world & the earth is literally only a few thousand years old.

You'll find a lot of people out there who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Even if they are "smart" people doesn't make them smart about that. If you want to really know about real engineering & structural integrity, look towards the vast majority of engineers out there who don't believe that conspiracy crap.

Are you one of those Orthodox Christians who will go to their Priest for absolutely everything? If you are injured, you don't go run to your Priest, you go to the emergency room where nurses & doctors can use their knowledge to fix you. If you are suffering from severe depression and/or thoughts of suicide, you don't just go to your Priest, you also seek after a trained, licensed psychologist. If you need a building built, you go to an architect.

If you want to know about science, you go to a scientist, not a monk. If you want to know about history, you go to a historian, not a monk.

If you want to know why the world was created by God, and why we are here, seek a monk. But if you want to know how it was created and how long ago, seek a scientist.

If you want to know about ancient Israel & it's spiritual journey, seek an Orthodox authority. If you want to know about when ancient Israel existed, it's battles, it's migrations, it's physical existence, seek a historian/archaeologist.

We don't throw our brains out the door when we become Orthodox.

_____________________________________

I'm sure there may even be some Saints who insisted or believed that St. George really fought a dragon or a mountain literally was moved for Saints. Does that mean that is fact? No. In fact, dragons don't exist, never existed; and mountains were never moved. Those stories were illustrating profound spiritual points, not literal, historical "facts".

Why are people willing to go to such lengths to try to "marry" the Bible to evolutionary pseudoscience? Why can't you trust what God says? He said "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11). If the six days were really long periods of time, then the Sabbath rest would have no meaning. This is why in Genesis He specifically said "And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5) - so that we would know that it is a literal day with a literal morning and evening.

Evolution is as much a religion as Christianity - except that evolution is much harder to believe in since everything that exists must have been the result of chance.

Evolution is NOT science. It is speculation about what went on in the past. Macroevolution (one kind of animal changing into another) is not observable, testable and demonstrable.

Can Orthodox Christians believe that Adam and Eve were not real people but that the story was just a myth? If so, then that means that certain Bible passages (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15) make no sense. If there was no Adam and Eve, then there was no sin and no Fall. If there is no sin, then there is no need for a Saviour. See where this leads?

I urge you, please don't depart from the literal meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 just to fit in with pseudoscientific theories that have been proven false. I can give you several links to sites that demonstrate that evolutionism is false. The reason that the theory is still kept alive is that the only alternative, Creation, is clearly unthinkable to scientists dedicated to materialism and atheism.

Why are people willing to go to such lengths to try to "marry" the Bible to evolutionary pseudoscience? Why can't you trust what God says? He said "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11). If the six days were really long periods of time, then the Sabbath rest would have no meaning. This is why in Genesis He specifically said "And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5) - so that we would know that it is a literal day with a literal morning and evening.

Evolution is as much a religion as Christianity - except that evolution is much harder to believe in since everything that exists must have been the result of chance.

Evolution is NOT science. It is speculation about what went on in the past. Macroevolution (one kind of animal changing into another) is not observable, testable and demonstrable.

Can Orthodox Christians believe that Adam and Eve were not real people but that the story was just a myth? If so, then that means that certain Bible passages (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15) make no sense. If there was no Adam and Eve, then there was no sin and no Fall. If there is no sin, then there is no need for a Saviour. See where this leads?

I urge you, please don't depart from the literal meaning of Genesis 1 and 2 just to fit in with pseudoscientific theories that have been proven false. I can give you several links to sites that demonstrate that evolutionism is false. The reason that the theory is still kept alive is that the only alternative, Creation, is clearly unthinkable to scientists dedicated to materialism and atheism.

Wow, you really don't understand science or evolution. Please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, don't bring your Protestant Fundamentalism with you into Orthodoxy.

If you insist on reading the Bible on the literal level, you are reading it at the lowest level possible, the lowest spiritual level. You are reading it very much like Jew, and not in a good way. Do you want to grow in your faith and do you want to start eating meat rather than pudding? Do you want to move onto full, grown-up meals instead of little Gerber baby meals? If so, then grow up! Move on to higher levels of interpretation and understand that the Bible isn't a scientific document and isn't a historical textbook.

Do Orthodox Christian believe that bible is 100% correct and no mistake?

Of course. It is also mysteriological and multi-valent.

Of course as in it is 100% true? Not as in it is 100% inerrant? There are some factual historical & scientific errors in it, some translations (including ancient ones) have some mistakes and inconsistencies (none that affect doctrine or important things).

We have to be careful how we word these things and how we phrase our arguments, lest we come across as crazy Protestant fundies.

Yes, of course the bible is historically and scientifically inaccurate. Science is always right and no one has ever proven something historically accurate by using scriptures when history books said it was wrong. Right?

Your sarcasm falls flat on your face. I never said it was historically and scientifically inaccurate, I said there are some factual errors in it.

Unless you are an idiot/retarded Fundamentalist, you shouldn't believe that its perfect. Orthodox Christians should not believe it is perfect or inerrant. If you do, then you need to get rid of your Protestant fundamentalism, it has no place in the church.

As I read other posts after your reply to mine, and including your reply to my post, it is obvious you are passionate about this topic. This is normally not a problem, but I see your passion interfering with your ability to reasonably respond to other posters and I would ask you take a moment to respond without the indirect name calling and accusations. Whether you mean them to be as such, it has the appearance.

I am having a difficult time understanding your view with inerrant and factual. Inerrant, by definition, means without error. Truth, by definition, means factual. The two, in my mind are the same, yet you create a distinction between them that escapes me. How can something be factual, yet inaccurate? To show what I mean, but using a very different analogy, a person could say God doesn’t exist and then turn around and say God is a evil spirited child who likes to cause pain and suffering in the world. If God didn’t exist, He couldn’t be anything, much less what was described and if He was as described, then He does, in fact, exist. So, for something to be true it must not have error and if it has error, it can’t be true. If there are factual errors, it is inaccurate. This isn’t scrabble (word game).

Having said this, if the scriptures are filled with historical inaccuracies and scientific errors, why do we learn new information on a regular and continuous basis which reveals the scriptures to be more historically accurate than ever previously believed and the more we learn of them and of science, to be more accurate in that aspect than previously believed? Science, to be completely honest here, has little to do with God and how He chose to operate within scripture. God is not limited to human science. If He were, Jesus would never have been born. Unless you mean the “flat earth” propaganda presented by people who try to discredit Christianity and Judaism. Historically, cultures and lost cities, thought to have been fabricated, and people as well, have been discovered, using nothing more than the scriptures to find them. You mentioned ancient translations. Ignoring the fact any time you translate from one language to another, there will always be minor changes (which I hope is not what you are talking about), how do you know the other manuscripts you use to make comparison are themselves accurate? There is a lot of assumption in your argument, which is not a real problem, until you began to let yourself become emotionally charged (i.e., saying people who believe one thing or another are not really Orthodox and should either give up or become protestant). I find comments like this reprehensible, but to each his own. I suppose I am an idiot/retarded Protestant fundamentalist, at least I think this was your wording, for believing the scriptures themselves are as perfect as anything God has ever created. Call me crazy, but I am not the one making statements like, “You're an idiot if you try to insist that the universe could have only been created in 6 literal days” as if it were not possible for God to do this very thing. My idea of an idiot would be to limit Gods ability and to think I, as a puny human, know exactly how God does anything, but that’s just me. Perhaps I’m a heretic as well. But, what you really mean to say is, an idiot is someone who disagrees with you and your ideas.

Again, you claim certain things of historical significance in scripture has been proven wrong, yet every day we learn those things actually did happen and take place as described in the scriptures. Why wouldn’t someone, after seeing this happen multiple times, NOT believe scripture more accurate than someone’s guess work? (Sodom, Pontius Pilate, King David, etc.)

You do know that there are probably at least 1 or 2 Saints in our hagiography that probably didn't exist right?

Probably didn’t and didn’t are not the same. Because you think it may be so in no way makes it so. If I understand it process accurately, fake people don’t get the title of saint because fake people can’t do the things required to get the title.

Do you also believe that dragons exist? That mountains literally move from one spot to the other?

That all depends on what you call a dragon. Why can’t mountains literally move? There you go placing limits on God again. By the way, I know of several mountains that disappeared almost instantaneously.

Why not? There is a substantial amount of evidence to suggest the possibility. Because you disagree does not make you right and others wrong. If you can believe life sprang forth from lifelessness, which has scientifically been proven wrong, someone else can believe in a world flood.

My point, in the end, is simply to relax and stop attacking people. In this thread, you are the only one doing this and honestly, I am surprised it’s you. I have come to expect much more from your posts.

Your point being? You do know that there are probably at least 1 or 2 Saints in our hagiography that probably didn't exist right?

Do you also believe that dragons exist? That mountains literally move from one spot to the other?

Do you believe in a literal, earth-encompassing flood?

Stop using people like Fr. Seraphim Rose as your guide for non-spiritual matters for God's sake.

the point is rather obvious. you think you know better than the Saints who have stood at the very heart of theology, beholding a vision of the glorified Christ, and you think you know better than the liturgical life of the Church. knowing better than the Church is what is Protestant. the matter at hand is how to understand the Scriptures. thats a spiritual matter. and i haven't quoted Fr. Seraphim once. like it or not, what you say is not what the Church says.

He said "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11). If the six days were really long periods of time, then the Sabbath rest would have no meaning. This is why in Genesis He specifically said "And the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:5) - so that we would know that it is a literal day with a literal morning and evening.

1. We can deduce the speed of light from experiments and observations. (It's 300,000 meters per second)

2. We can use telescopes to see light from billions and billions of lightyears away. (Farthest observed: 13.14 Billion lightyears)

3. We can then conclude that there were objects in the Cosmos at least 13.14 Billion years ago.

St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Homilies, p. 116: For human understanding and human logic, however great they may be, are too puny to reach to the world’s beginning and its end. Understanding is useless where vision is needed. We need a seer, who sees as clearly as the sun – to see the whole world, from its beginning to its end, and the beginning and the end themselves. There has only ever been one such: the Lord Jesus Christ.

St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Homilies, p. 116: For human understanding and human logic, however great they may be, are too puny to reach to the world’s beginning and its end. Understanding is useless where vision is needed. We need a seer, who sees as clearly as the sun – to see the whole world, from its beginning to its end, and the beginning and the end themselves. There has only ever been one such: the Lord Jesus Christ.

Can you admit for once that even Saints can be wrong?

Proof texting saints as if they are an authority on science doesn't do any one any good.

i never said Saints cant be wrong. And yet they are the bearers of the Tradition. call me crazy, but when they speak, I respect it and I listen. they understand Scripture. why should i take your word over the consensus of the Saints? are you infallible?

if your position is so obviously wrong then surely you could find just one Saint who agrees. unless those poor Saints were always too stupid to rise above their lack of Darwinian science. the inspiration of the Spirit of God is so weak in the face of DARWIN! so sad that the Saints couldn't rise out of the mire.

i never said Saints cant be wrong. And yet they are the bearers of the Tradition. call me crazy, but when they speak, I respect it and I listen. they understand Scripture. why should i take your word over the consensus of the Saints? are you infallible?

if your position is so obviously wrong then surely you could find just one Saint who agrees. unless those poor Saints were always too stupid to rise above their lack of Darwinian science. the inspiration of the Spirit of God is so weak in the face of DARWIN! so sad that the Saints couldn't rise out of the mire.

No human is infallible except for Our Lord. What I was trying to say was that most of these saints you quote were speaking from a position of ignorance with regards to science.

Having faith does not and should not entail closing our eyes and ears against evidence that is all around us.

i never said Saints cant be wrong. And yet they are the bearers of the Tradition. call me crazy, but when they speak, I respect it and I listen. they understand Scripture. why should i take your word over the consensus of the Saints? are you infallible?

if your position is so obviously wrong then surely you could find just one Saint who agrees. unless those poor Saints were always too stupid to rise above their lack of Darwinian science. the inspiration of the Spirit of God is so weak in the face of DARWIN! so sad that the Saints couldn't rise out of the mire.

No human is infallible except for Our Lord. What I was trying to say was that most of these saints you quote were speaking from a position of ignorance with regards to science.

Having faith does not and should not entail closing our eyes and ears against evidence that is all around us.

im not quoting them in regards to science but in regards to how to approach Scripture. and illumination includes natural contemplation. i daresay the Saints understand creation far better than any scientist.

i never said Saints cant be wrong. And yet they are the bearers of the Tradition. call me crazy, but when they speak, I respect it and I listen. they understand Scripture. why should i take your word over the consensus of the Saints? are you infallible?

if your position is so obviously wrong then surely you could find just one Saint who agrees. unless those poor Saints were always too stupid to rise above their lack of Darwinian science. the inspiration of the Spirit of God is so weak in the face of DARWIN! so sad that the Saints couldn't rise out of the mire.

No human is infallible except for Our Lord. What I was trying to say was that most of these saints you quote were speaking from a position of ignorance with regards to science.

Having faith does not and should not entail closing our eyes and ears against evidence that is all around us.

im not quoting them in regards to science but in regards to how to approach Scripture. and illumination includes natural contemplation. i daresay the Saints understand creation far better than any scientist.

I agree that the Saints understand the whys of Creation better than any scientist. However, this discussion is about the hows, and science is better equipped to answer those questions.

i never said Saints cant be wrong. And yet they are the bearers of the Tradition. call me crazy, but when they speak, I respect it and I listen. they understand Scripture. why should i take your word over the consensus of the Saints? are you infallible?

if your position is so obviously wrong then surely you could find just one Saint who agrees. unless those poor Saints were always too stupid to rise above their lack of Darwinian science. the inspiration of the Spirit of God is so weak in the face of DARWIN! so sad that the Saints couldn't rise out of the mire.

No human is infallible except for Our Lord. What I was trying to say was that most of these saints you quote were speaking from a position of ignorance with regards to science.

Having faith does not and should not entail closing our eyes and ears against evidence that is all around us.

im not quoting them in regards to science but in regards to how to approach Scripture. and illumination includes natural contemplation. i daresay the Saints understand creation far better than any scientist.

I agree that the Saints understand the whys of Creation better than any scientist. However, this discussion is about the hows, and science is better equipped to answer those questions.

THANK YOU!

Some people just fail to use their brains properly. People also don't understand evolution either. If one says things like "I didn't come from monkeys", or "Evolution is just a theory", then they clearly misunderstand both science and evolution. Statements like that are equivalent to a Muslim telling a Christian "God is not three" or a Protestant telling an Orthodox "we shouldn't worship images".

Such statements show a profound state of ignorance.You cannot and should not proof-text saints as though they were the be-all end-all.

A spiritual man understands the spiritual state, and to a degree, the "why's". But they may not understand the how's.

It's like people who think heaven and hell are literal places, and God the Father (and his Son) sit on literal thrones.

These people's reasoning skills and biblical interpretation is so low, so basic that they fail to get beyond the literal sense, and they seem to think the literal sense is just as important and vital to our faith as the allegorical, typological and other senses.

To say "science has been proven wrong" is also an incorrect statement. The theory of evolution is a theory which has the backing of a lot of data. It has not been proven wrong yet. At the same time, it has not been proven to the point of being a "law". Theories are not things that are inherently false, theories aren't guesses. Theories are things which have been discovered through a profound amount of measurable, observable data which has not yet been proven wrong.

Like the theory of relativity and the speed of light. Could it possibly be proven wrong? It possibly could, but the evidence for the theory has shown that it is extremely unlikely that it could be broken. Can you bend around it through other laws? You probably can, such as the possibility of bending time and space itself to travel between two points at unimaginable speeds, or even passing through wormholes or other dimensions.

The simple fact is that our saints are not infallible and were limited to the science of their day and we shouldn't stubbornly adhere to it as though it were some holy revelation.

The earth is not flat, the earth is not the physical center of the universe, the earth is not only 6.000 years old, the earth doesn't have water suspended literally below and above (as posited by a small amount of Genesis literalists, including ancient Jews), Homo sapiens are not beings that popped out of thin air but rather we evolved (this doesn't change the fact we are made in the image of God), the sun and other planets do NOT revolve around the earth, the earth is not expanding outward (some literalists posit this as explanation for plate movement) and I could continue on and on and on.

Science does not contradict scripture because it does not and cannot ever discuss the existence of God and cannot explain or discuss the spiritual world or life. Science is limited to what can be observed and measured. This means that it can tell us how old the world is, and how it and the universe actually came to be, but it cannot tell us why it came to be. It cannot say whether or not the universe is pre-existing. It cannot say whether angels exist or whether, when enveloped by the spirit, your body can physically pass through walls.

Literalists also suggest ridiculous things like when God spoke at Christ's baptism, that it was a literal, booming voice from heaven. Or other things which are simply not the case.

The Saints were limited to the science if their day and were not men of science. We can't expect them to be and we can't look to them as guides as to whether modern science is true or not.

If you refuse to believe this, then you can remain in the realm of stupid while we properly educate your kids and while we continue to interpret the scriptures properly and not remain hung up on the baby-food level of interpretation.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

Bro I know you must be frustrated, but ad hominems aren't going to convince anyone.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

Bro I know you must be frustrated, but ad hominems aren't going to convince anyone.

I used to be a fundamentalist, it wouldn't matter if I used ad hominems or not, fundies are so entrenched in their own Islamic-like interpretation and view of the Bible that they can't be reasoned with unless they are willing to accept other views.

Unfortunately, we've lost thousands of people in Christianity to atheism and agnosticism because they were brought up as fundamentalists, and suddenly discover that they were wrong, and instead of simply adapting their views, they've completely abandoned the faith. For fundamentalists, it is "all or nothing", there is no grey area, and so ad hominems don't help much, but they don't hurt any either, since they are already fanatical and stubborn.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

Bro I know you must be frustrated, but ad hominems aren't going to convince anyone.

I used to be a fundamentalist, it wouldn't matter if I used ad hominems or not, fundies are so entrenched in their own Islamic-like interpretation and view of the Bible that they can't be reasoned with unless they are willing to accept other views.

Unfortunately, we've lost thousands of people in Christianity to atheism and agnosticism because they were brought up as fundamentalists, and suddenly discover that they were wrong, and instead of simply adapting their views, they've completely abandoned the faith. For fundamentalists, it is "all or nothing", there is no grey area, and so ad hominems don't help much, but they don't hurt any either, since they are already fanatical and stubborn.

Remember, you're posting on a public forum. Your harsh words might turn away someone who would otherwise be willing to listen to what you want to say.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

ive already demonstrated to you that the Fathers not only accepted the literal level, but in fact warned against NOT accepting it. ill trust them on Scripture. you've pointed to Met. Kallistos and Dr. Jeannie, both of whom I respect, but who are not sufficient establish any position as being the Patristic tradition of 2000 years. you're only showing that some modern people are in disagreement with the Fathers.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

Bro I know you must be frustrated, but ad hominems aren't going to convince anyone.

I used to be a fundamentalist, it wouldn't matter if I used ad hominems or not, fundies are so entrenched in their own Islamic-like interpretation and view of the Bible that they can't be reasoned with unless they are willing to accept other views.

Unfortunately, we've lost thousands of people in Christianity to atheism and agnosticism because they were brought up as fundamentalists, and suddenly discover that they were wrong, and instead of simply adapting their views, they've completely abandoned the faith. For fundamentalists, it is "all or nothing", there is no grey area, and so ad hominems don't help much, but they don't hurt any either, since they are already fanatical and stubborn.

if anyone on this thread is acting fanatical and stubborn it is surely you.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

ive already demonstrated to you that the Fathers not only accepted the literal level, but in fact warned against NOT accepting it. ill trust them on Scripture. you've pointed to Met. Kallistos and Dr. Jeannie, both of whom I respect, but who are not sufficient establish any position as being the Patristic tradition of 2000 years. you're only showing that some modern people are in disagreement with the Fathers.

a couple quick questions: Do you believe in the Geocentric model? Why or why not?

I'd like to know his opinion on the following ideas:GeocentrismFlat-EarthExpanding Earth

I've read creationist accounts, I'm ashamed to admit that I was once a creationist and had plenty of literature on it (which I decided to give to my old Protestant Church, but now I wished I had burned it) and I will tell you that they don't have any good evidence on their side other than faulty biblical interpretation and very flawed scientific research.

I do not say God couldn't have done it in six days, I'm saying that he did not do it that way. We know for a fact that the universe is at the least 13.75 billion years old, and the earth is at least 4.54 billion years old, and Homo sapiens are at least only 200,000 years old. Those have been proven to be at the least, the yougest age of those things.

We know for a fact there was never a worldwide flood, and there isn't even enough water to cover the entire earth. We know there was probably a massive flood, but it wasn't worldwide.

God does not act against or contradict his own creation. He doesn't just step in and completely alter it at any point in time. We also do not have a "God of the gaps", you can't just insert God into any part of science you/we haven't discovered or understand.

You also cannot say that science contradicts scripture because it simply doesn't. Genesis is not to be taken literally and if you think it is, then that only shows you to be spiritually immature and your interpretation to be extremely clouded.

We aren't Protestants and we don't need Protestant ideas in our church. If you want to be a fundamentalist, find, but get out of the church and do it elsewhere. Join the Protestant fundie rednecks or the unorthodox schismatics like the "True Orthodox" fundamentalists, but don't treat Orthodoxy like it is a new place for you to insert your heretical Protestant fundamentalist views.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

ive already demonstrated to you that the Fathers not only accepted the literal level, but in fact warned against NOT accepting it. ill trust them on Scripture. you've pointed to Met. Kallistos and Dr. Jeannie, both of whom I respect, but who are not sufficient establish any position as being the Patristic tradition of 2000 years. you're only showing that some modern people are in disagreement with the Fathers.

a couple quick questions: Do you believe in the Geocentric model? Why or why not?

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

And with this irrational burst of, whatever it is that ails you, I depart this thread.

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

ive already demonstrated to you that the Fathers not only accepted the literal level, but in fact warned against NOT accepting it. ill trust them on Scripture. you've pointed to Met. Kallistos and Dr. Jeannie, both of whom I respect, but who are not sufficient establish any position as being the Patristic tradition of 2000 years. you're only showing that some modern people are in disagreement with the Fathers.

a couple quick questions: Do you believe in the Geocentric model? Why or why not?

I don't see how changing the topic of discussion is useful.

The fathers were once unanimous in their approval of the Geocentric model, why do we not follow it anymore?

your assumption that deeper levels of meaning negate the literal-historical level is false and un-Patristic. only rarely is the literal level done away with altogether, such as when the Scriptures use anthropomorphisms for God.

You're just plain stupid if you think we should interpret all scripture literally (except for the anthropomorphisms of God).

Maybe you should leave the Church and go back to the Protestant Fundamentalists? We don't need fundamentalist idiots here. You either give up your fundamentalism or get out. People like you are distorting the church.

I wished I could live to see the day when the fundies don't exist anymore. The world will be much better off.

ive already demonstrated to you that the Fathers not only accepted the literal level, but in fact warned against NOT accepting it. ill trust them on Scripture. you've pointed to Met. Kallistos and Dr. Jeannie, both of whom I respect, but who are not sufficient establish any position as being the Patristic tradition of 2000 years. you're only showing that some modern people are in disagreement with the Fathers.

a couple quick questions: Do you believe in the Geocentric model? Why or why not?

I don't see how changing the topic of discussion is useful.

The fathers were once unanimous in their approval of the Geocentric model, why do we not follow it anymore?

Proof?

Unanimity in the fathers is rare. If they're unanimous on a matter of science, it reflects the understanding of the time. I was under the impression that geocentrism was not unanimously believed by the ancients, but is rather a misunderstanding. It has more to do with Roman Catholic reading of Aristotle and humanism than with ancient science.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Wow, you really don't understand science or evolution. Please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, don't bring your Protestant Fundamentalism with you into Orthodoxy.

We aren't Protestants and we don't need Protestant ideas in our church. If you want to be a fundamentalist, find, but get out of the church and do it elsewhere. Join the Protestant fundie rednecks or the unorthodox schismatics like the "True Orthodox" fundamentalists, but don't treat Orthodoxy like it is a new place for you to insert your heretical Protestant fundamentalist views.

Since when is believing literally what the Bible says Protestant fundamentalism?I'm sure if you went back 200 years and asked any Orthodox priest if the world was created in six literal days, they would have said 'yes' without a doubt.

So you're basically saying that it's not possible for an Orthodox Christian to be a creationist and that all Orthodox Christians who believe in creation are heretics. Do you believe that it is not a valid theological opinion for an Orthodox Christian to hold?

In the Orthodoxy Study Bible, the study notes on Creation say that with regard to evolution, the Orthodox Church has not dogmatised any particular view.

Quote

Move on to higher levels of interpretation and understand that the Bible isn't a scientific document and isn't a historical textbook.

Can you prove this from the Scripture or the Fathers?

Quote

Your point being? You do know that there are probably at least 1 or 2 Saints in our hagiography that probably didn't exist right?

How do you know they didn't exist?

Quote

Do you also believe that dragons exist?

Yes, I do. The modern world has created a new word for them - dinosaurs.

Quote

That mountains literally move from one spot to the other?

God can do anything.

Quote

God is not limited to human science.

This is exactly my point. God can do anything He chooses to, since He is omniscient. However, atheistic and materialistic scientists do limit themselves to human science and that's why they have to come up with ridiculous theories like evolutionism to explain how we got here.

Quote

1. We can deduce the speed of light from experiments and observations. (It's 300,000 meters per second)

2. We can use telescopes to see light from billions and billions of lightyears away. (Farthest observed: 13.14 Billion lightyears)

3. We can then conclude that there were objects in the Cosmos at least 13.14 Billion years ago.

There is no way the Cosmos are 7500 years old.

It's possible that the speed of light in the past was not the same as it is now. I have a book with a somewhat complex assessment of this very issue, and I can post the relevant chapter if you're interested.

Quote

No human is infallible except for Our Lord. What I was trying to say was that most of these saints you quote were speaking from a position of ignorance with regards to science.

Okay, so let's see what Our Lord said with regard to the creation of man.

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)

Now, according to the evolutionist world view, the universe is about 14 billion years old, and the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. Man only arose in the last few million years. Jesus said that God made man from the beginning, but evolutionism places billions of years between the 'beginning' and the 'evolution' of the first man.

This leaves us with a dilemma.1. Was Jesus lying?2. Was Jesus ignorant of modern science?3. Was Jesus right?

If option 1 or option 2 is correct, then Jesus is not God. However, we have it on the best authority (the first 2 Ecumenical Councils) that Jesus Christ is indeed God. So therefore, the only logical answer is 3. Therefore, evolutionism is false. QED.

Quote

To say "science has been proven wrong" is also an incorrect statement. The theory of evolution is a theory which has the backing of a lot of data. It has not been proven wrong yet. At the same time, it has not been proven to the point of being a "law". Theories are not things that are inherently false, theories aren't guesses. Theories are things which have been discovered through a profound amount of measurable, observable data which has not yet been proven wrong.

Did you know that Darwin wrote his "theory" without any evidence? The only evidence that Darwin had was evidence of "micro-evolution" - variation among species. This is a scientific fact. However, macro-evolution - one kind of animal changing into another - has never been observed, tested and demonstrated, and therefore, is not scientific. If it had really happened, there would be thousands or millions of transitional fossils, which there aren't.

Evolutionists look at bones and fossils and when they see homologous features in different species, they claim that this is proof that they had a common ancestor. However, there is another explanation - they had a common designer.

Quote

The earth is not flat

The Bible never says it is.

Quote

the earth is not the physical center of the universe

How do you know? You haven't explored the entire universe and plotted a map of it. The earth could very well be at the centre of the universe.

Quote

the earth is not only 6.000 years old

If man had been here on earth for millions of years, the earth would be overpopulated, even with a ridiculously small population growth rate.

Quote

the earth doesn't have water suspended literally below and above

It's possible that there used to be a water canopy over the earth, but it was destroyed in the flood. Kent Hovind puts forwards some compelling evidence for a water canopy in his second creation seminar.

Quote

the sun and other planets do NOT revolve around the earth

The Bible never says they do.

Quote

We know for a fact there was never a worldwide flood, and there isn't even enough water to cover the entire earth. We know there was probably a massive flood, but it wasn't worldwide.

Seashells have been found near the top of Mount Everest. It must have been underwater at some point. Dr Walter Brown puts forward some compelling evidence for the Flood in his book In the Begining.

Quote

You also cannot say that science contradicts scripture because it simply doesn't. Genesis is not to be taken literally and if you think it is, then that only shows you to be spiritually immature and your interpretation to be extremely clouded.

Jckstraw has provided sufficient quotes from the Fathers to show that Scripture is to be interpreted literally. I presume you have Scriptural or Patristic quotes to prove your point.